Technically, the ruling is on the time frame in which the plaintiffs brought their suit for discrimination, however, inside the parameters of the case, one can see more troubling precedents being either established or accepted. For example, the US Constitution's "equal protection" clause (14th Amendment) mentions only equal PROTECTION by state laws, not equal treatment. To make it mean anything else would require a further amendment. The Congressional law banning "discrimination" based on race, etc., is predicated on the previous, erroneous, reading of the 14th Amendment. The result? The city of Chicago has been determined to have acted in a racially discriminatory way by actually selecting for the firefighter jobs those who did THE BEST on the test.

This is not a good sign for those who would like to have the best hired by the government to protect their property from damage and to protet their lives from fire.

But perhaps this gives us cause to consider... Maybe one shouldn't think that it's the government's job to protect them from fires. Perhaps people could think that taxing their neighbor in order to create a firefighting team will incur all sorts of problems. For example, what if the neighbor you're taxing would like to have a more racially diverse team? Doesn't he or she have a right to demand it? After all, its HIS/HER money that's being taken...

See, the introduction of government and taxation into the equation causes all sorts of moral quandries. These troubles can be resolved if government is removed from the equation, and people handle their own lives without forcing others to pay for what the majority wants.

Here is the article...

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/37318753/ns/us_news-crime_and_courts/

Be Seeing You!